Myths about LNs
claviger
Yes we do, but only where there is actually evidence to prove or
strongly indicate a conspiracy. In this case there is no evidence for
conspiracy, just an overabundance of runaway fantasy speculation.
There is a mountain of evidence all pointing to LHO as a resentful and
embittered self-appointed low tech sniper with a chip on his shoulder
and a .38 in his pocket.
2. LNs want it to be a Lone Nut situation, not a conspiracy.
Speaking for myself, I don't care. I started off being a CT so it
doesn't matter to me either way. I just want to know the truth and if
a conspiracy to punish the bastards who did it.
3. All LNs are political conservatives.
Not true at all and that should have nothing to do with it anyway.
What may be more accurate is that LNs of all political persuasion are
more familiar with formal logic, cognitive thinking, and the
scientific method.
4. LNs are trying to help cover up the truth.
Nope, just ordinary skeptics like people from Missouri who say, "Show
me." We have serious doubts based on human nature a conspiracy of this
magnitude could be pulled off with throw down bullets, medical
operations at 30,000 feet, film alterations of several home movies,
and invisible snipers who use antiquated black powder weapons to shoot
at the motorcade.
5. LNs will be disappointed one day in 2017 when remaining documents
are finally released that prove there was a conspiracy.
No, LNs will be glad the great debate is finally over. There may be
some hurt pride our personal theory was wrong, but glad the truth
finally can be told. It might be the government was right to withhold
information that could have triggered WWIII. However, we will be
disappointed if a foreign or domestic enemy murdered the President of
the United States and got away with it.
bobr
If you dont think that jack ruby killing lee harvey oswald 2 days
later , on national tv, is cause to suspect a conspiracy then there is
really no room for discussion.
pjsp...@aol.com
> 1. LNs don't believe in conspiracies.
>
> Yes we do, but only where there is actually evidence to prove or
> strongly indicate a conspiracy. In this case there is no evidence for
> conspiracy, just an overabundance of runaway fantasy speculation.
> There is a mountain of evidence all pointing to LHO as a resentful and
> embittered self-appointed low tech sniper with a chip on his shoulder
> and a .38 in his pocket.
Grouping all LNs together, while fun, is no more accurate than
grouping all CTs together. I have discussed the case on several other
forums, and have went toe to toe with probably 2-300 different LNs.
And you are wrong. Many LNs, perhaps most, have no real respect for
the evidence, and move the back wound up to the base of the neck to
support their belief in the single-bullet fairy tale. Your claim that
Oswald was "embittered" and "self-appointed" is another such example.
LNs love to pretend they know and understand Oswald. They project on
to him their worst fears--a bitter poor person, self-appointed to
enact retribution on those with power. It's easy to take from this
that those harboring these fears perceive themselves to be better than
Oswald. The problem is they don't know the real Oswald, but the WC's
depiction of Oswald. Oswald's mother swore by his innocence. Buell
Frazier had a hard time believing Oswald did it. DeMohrenschildt came
to believe Oswald was innocent. So did Marina. Maybe there's a reason
for this.
>
> 2. LNs want it to be a Lone Nut situation, not a conspiracy.
>
> Speaking for myself, I don't care. I started off being a CT so it
> doesn't matter to me either way. I just want to know the truth and if
> a conspiracy to punish the bastards who did it.
You are correct to limit this to yourself. Most LNs I've come in
contact with have a desperate need to believe "patriots" like Hoover
were right, and "liars" like Lane, Garrison, and Stone, are wrong.
>
> 3. All LNs are political conservatives.
>
> Not true at all and that should have nothing to do with it anyway.
> What may be more accurate is that LNs of all political persuasion are
> more familiar with formal logic, cognitive thinking, and the
> scientific method.
Agreed. Not true. Some are liberals and find the possibility LBJ and
Warren looked the other way unthinkable.
>
> 4. LNs are trying to help cover up the truth.
>
> Nope, just ordinary skeptics like people from Missouri who say, "Show
> me." We have serious doubts based on human nature a conspiracy of this
> magnitude could be pulled off with throw down bullets, medical
> operations at 30,000 feet, film alterations of several home movies,
> and invisible snipers who use antiquated black powder weapons to shoot
> at the motorcade.
Not entirely true. Many of them are. Many of them believe the truth to
be readily apparent, so apparent, in fact, that they don't think any
more records should be released. In the 60's and 70's supporters of
the Warren Commission fought tooth and nail to prevent any further
investigation of the case. Even today, should Caroline suddenly say
she's gonna have her dad dug up, a few prominent LNs would jump up and
complain about how awful this was.
As far as your "doubts", many CTs, including myself, share these
doubts. Having doubts about the conspiracies espoused by others should
not push one into believing there was no conspiracy.
> 5. LNs will be disappointed one day in 2017 when remaining documents
> are finally released that prove there was a conspiracy.
>
> No, LNs will be glad the great debate is finally over. There may be
> some hurt pride our personal theory was wrong, but glad the truth
> finally can be told. It might be the government was right to withhold
> information that could have triggered WWIII. However, we will be
> disappointed if a foreign or domestic enemy murdered the President of
> the United States and got away with it.
2017 will not end the debate, IMO. I suspect that only the exhumation
of Kennedy, and the discovery there'd been more than one head shot,
could end the debate. If no such evidence is found, the debate will
continue.
Sandy McCroskey
Of course it was cause to suspect a conspiracy. (Though I don't know what
the event's being on national TV would have to do with that suspicion.)
It was not, and is not, any sort of *proof* of a conspiracy. The
possibiilty was investigated, and dismissed.
Ruby's crossing Oswald's path was obviously not planned. Just a few
minutes before Oswald came out to be transferred, way behind schedule,
Ruby was waiting patiently in line at the post office to send some money
to one of his strippers. This was, you know, in the days before cell
phones. There was no way Ruby could have known when Oswald would emerge.
And no CT has ever explained who was supposed to silence Ruby then.
/sm
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is cause to be suspiscious, just not evidence of conspiracy.
bigdog
Exactly what I've been telling Blubaugh. Even if JFK is dug up and no
evidence of a frontal shot is found, the debate will continue.
jas
An exhumation of JFK's body, if it could occur (and IMO more than likely
will not), would not end the debate. The CTers will simply add to their
conspiracy battle cry that the modern forensics are flawed, faked,
altered, baked, thawed, roasted, and sautéed to conform to the LN side.
Oh, I forgot -- and the forensic surgeons are all U.S. government rightist
extremist republican Nazi pigs.
Bud
Because nobody would wish harm on the President`s murderer?
John Blubaugh
Well it won't come from me.
JB
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Sep 8, 6:58 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1. LNs don't believe in conspiracies.
>>
>> Yes we do, but only where there is actually evidence to prove or
>> strongly indicate a conspiracy. In this case there is no evidence for
>> conspiracy, just an overabundance of runaway fantasy speculation.
>> There is a mountain of evidence all pointing to LHO as a resentful and
>> embittered self-appointed low tech sniper with a chip on his shoulder
>> and a .38 in his pocket.
>
>Grouping all LNs together, while fun, is no more accurate than
>grouping all CTs together. I have discussed the case on several other
>forums, and have went toe to toe with probably 2-300 different LNs.
>And you are wrong. Many LNs, perhaps most, have no real respect for
>the evidence, and move the back wound up to the base of the neck to
>support their belief in the single-bullet fairy tale.
The wound was at the level of C7/T1.
If you refuse to believe that, you have no respect for the truth.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>On Sep 8, 6:58 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1. LNs don't believe in conspiracies.
>>
>> Yes we do, but only where there is actually evidence to prove or
>> strongly indicate a conspiracy. In this case there is no evidence for
>> conspiracy, just an overabundance of runaway fantasy speculation.
>> There is a mountain of evidence all pointing to LHO as a resentful and
>> embittered self-appointed low tech sniper with a chip on his shoulder
>> and a .38 in his pocket.
>
>Grouping all LNs together, while fun, is no more accurate than
>grouping all CTs together. I have discussed the case on several other
>forums, and have went toe to toe with probably 2-300 different LNs.
>And you are wrong. Many LNs, perhaps most, have no real respect for
>the evidence, and move the back wound up to the base of the neck to
>support their belief in the single-bullet fairy tale. Your claim that
>Oswald was "embittered" and "self-appointed" is another such example.
>LNs love to pretend they know and understand Oswald. They project on
>to him their worst fears--a bitter poor person, self-appointed to
>enact retribution on those with power. It's easy to take from this
>that those harboring these fears perceive themselves to be better than
>Oswald. The problem is they don't know the real Oswald,
And you claim you do?
>but the WC's
>depiction of Oswald. Oswald's mother swore by his innocence.
Oh my God! You are actually invoking Marguerite.
>Buell
>Frazier had a hard time believing Oswald did it. DeMohrenschildt came
>to believe Oswald was innocent.
He came to say that in the 70s, when he was bonkers.
>So did Marina. Maybe there's a reason
>for this.
>>
Marina was simply manipulated by buffs.
She has firmly stuck to all the testimony she gave that inculpated
Oswald. She has never backed off her testimony that Oswald told her
he shot at Walker.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>
>You are correct to limit this to yourself. Most LNs I've come in
>contact with have a desperate need to believe "patriots" like Hoover
>were right, and "liars" like Lane, Garrison, and Stone, are wrong.
I think people like you have a desperate need to hate Hoover, LBJ, the
CIA and so on.
Therefore you are willing to be fooled by buff authors.
You really don't know anything about conspiracy literature if you
doubt the people you listed are liars.
People like Tink Thompson, Tony Summers and Henry Hurt aren't liars.
But the people you listed *are* liars.
Do you actually doubt that Garrison lied?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm
Lane?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
Stone?
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html
You credibility is at stake here.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>On Sep 8, 6:58 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1. LNs don't believe in conspiracies.
>>
>>
>> No, LNs will be glad the great debate is finally over. There may be
>> some hurt pride our personal theory was wrong, but glad the truth
>> finally can be told. It might be the government was right to withhold
>> information that could have triggered WWIII. However, we will be
>> disappointed if a foreign or domestic enemy murdered the President of
>> the United States and got away with it.
>
>2017 will not end the debate, IMO. I suspect that only the exhumation
>of Kennedy, and the discovery there'd been more than one head shot,
>could end the debate. If no such evidence is found, the debate will
>continue.
>
Translation: when an exhumation shows only one shot to the head, you
folks will do exactly what you did when the photos and x-rays were
analyzed, and didn't show what you wanted.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>3. All LNs are political conservatives.
>
>Not true at all and that should have nothing to do with it anyway.
>What may be more accurate is that LNs of all political persuasion are
>more familiar with formal logic, cognitive thinking, and the
>scientific method.
>
While there are exceptions, the conspiracy culture leans sharply to
the left.
The assassination simply provides too many opportunities to hate
individuals and groups that leftists want to hate anyway -- Hoover,
LBJ, the CIA, the FBI, anti-Castro Cubans, anti-Communists generally.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
If you were really willing to accept evidence, you would accept the
evidence from the autopsy photos and x-rays.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 8 Sep 2010 14:32:27 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
The HSCA FPP's exhibits placed it at T1. If one moves it up to C7/T1 and
claims it's where the HSCA placed it, it's because one has little respect
for the truth.
Now, that settled, your friend Artwohl has the bullet descending 21
degrees within the neck, which means it would descend about two inches
along its course before its exit. If the bullet descended two inches
within the neck from C7/T1, at what level did it exit?
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 8 Sep 2010 14:32:27 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 8, 6:58 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 1. LNs don't believe in conspiracies.
>
> >> Yes we do, but only where there is actually evidence to prove or
> >> strongly indicate a conspiracy. In this case there is no evidence for
> >> conspiracy, just an overabundance of runaway fantasy speculation.
> >> There is a mountain of evidence all pointing to LHO as a resentful and
> >> embittered self-appointed low tech sniper with a chip on his shoulder
> >> and a .38 in his pocket.
>
> >Grouping all LNs together, while fun, is no more accurate than
> >grouping all CTs together. I have discussed the case on several other
> >forums, and have went toe to toe with probably 2-300 different LNs.
> >And you are wrong. Many LNs, perhaps most, have no real respect for
> >the evidence, and move the back wound up to the base of the neck to
> >support their belief in the single-bullet fairy tale. Your claim that
> >Oswald was "embittered" and "self-appointed" is another such example.
> >LNs love to pretend they know and understand Oswald. They project on
> >to him their worst fears--a bitter poor person, self-appointed to
> >enact retribution on those with power. It's easy to take from this
> >that those harboring these fears perceive themselves to be better than
> >Oswald. The problem is they don't know the real Oswald,
>
> And you claim you do?
No.
>
> >but the WC's
> >depiction of Oswald. Oswald's mother swore by his innocence.
>
> Oh my God! You are actually invoking Marguerite.
No. She was a loon. But she also knew her boy. Not all mothers think
their boy is innocent, you know.
>
> >Buell
> >Frazier had a hard time believing Oswald did it. DeMohrenschildt came
> >to believe Oswald was innocent.
>
> He came to say that in the 70s, when he was bonkers.
He either came to believe it because he was bonkers or went what you call
bonkers because he came to believe it. Neither of us is in a position to
know. What we do know is that his book on Oswald was written by someone
who was not so bonkers that their opinion should be disregarded.
>
> >So did Marina. Maybe there's a reason
> >for this.
>
> Marina was simply manipulated by buffs.
>
> She has firmly stuck to all the testimony she gave that inculpated
> Oswald. She has never backed off her testimony that Oswald told her
> he shot at Walker.
Never said she did. She stands by her testimony and believes Oswald
innocent anyhow. Oughta give you something to think about.
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 8 Sep 2010 14:32:27 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >You are correct to limit this to yourself. Most LNs I've come in
> >contact with have a desperate need to believe "patriots" like Hoover
> >were right, and "liars" like Lane, Garrison, and Stone, are wrong.
>
> I think people like you have a desperate need to hate Hoover, LBJ, the
> CIA and so on.
Well, you think wrong. I grew up thinking LBJ was my grandpa and got
very upset when he left office. One of my favorite shows was The FBI,
one of whose stars was my neighbor. Although I've come to learn some
unsavory things about Hoover, LBJ, the CIA, and so on, I by no means
hate them.
>
> Therefore you are willing to be fooled by buff authors.
I'm not willing to be fooled by anybody, except maybe Angelina Jolie,
for one night only. If you'd actually read my webpage you'd see I have
sections in which I debunk conspiracy nonsense as well as LN nonsense.
I have an entire chapter which supports your belief the Parkland
witnesses were wrong. So quit pretending I'm someone else.
>
> You really don't know anything about conspiracy literature if you
> doubt the people you listed are liars.
Define "liar." Most everyone to write on the case has made claims that
are demonstrably untrue. Dr. Lattimer, for instance, said Kennedy's
back wound was at the level of his chin. Well, the autopsy photos
prove, if nothing else, that it was inches below the base of Kennedy's
neck, and Lattimer's assertion, therefore, puts the base of Kennedy's
neck inches above his chin, an assertion that is unbelievable
ludicrous. Now, was he a liar? Sometimes I think so, sometimes not.
Sometimes I suspect that studying this case is like getting drunk, and
leads people to make claims they'd like to forget the next day.
>
> People like Tink Thompson, Tony Summers and Henry Hurt aren't liars.
> But the people you listed *are* liars.
>
> Do you actually doubt that Garrison lied?
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm
>
> Lane?
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>
> Stone?
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html
>
> You credibility is at stake here.
No, not at all. I acknowledge that both sides have distorted the
evidence. It is LNs like yourself who like to pretend that their
"side" always tells the truth.
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mark drenning
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
The CTs would claim all those things and some would even claim the
body was switched. Nothing will ever satisfy them.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh goody. If we dig up JFK and find no evidence of a frontal shot,
there will be one less CT in this world. That certainly would make it
a worthwhile effort.
Sandy McCroskey
Yes, it does.
Marina has let herself be convinced, and convinced herself that Oswald
was innocent.
She is sincere about this, on every conscious level.
So it doesn't follow that she would lie about what she remembered
about her husband.
In her mind, Oswald's holding the MC in the backyard photos (for
example) does not imply his guilt.
She has found some way to reconcile what she knows with what she wants
to believe... even if it means not thinking about too much about some
things she knows.
/sm
>
>
> > .John
> > --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
mark drenning
mark drenning
apartment at that hour. CASE CLOSED.
mark drenning
of their father as a murderer.
John Blubaugh
> On 8 Sep 2010 23:01:23 -0400, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com>
I think anything the government touched in this case is suspect.
JB
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. The ENTRY was at the intersection of C7/T1. Then the bullet
continued on its downward path and hit the TOP of T1.
> Now, that settled, your friend Artwohl has the bullet descending 21
> degrees within the neck, which means it would descend about two inches
> along its course before its exit. If the bullet descended two inches
> within the neck from C7/T1, at what level did it exit?
>
Such a trajectory would likely hit the top of the manubrium.
Anthony Marsh
The photos and X-rays showed exactly what I wanted, down to the nearest
inch. And they forced you to admit that the WC was a pack of lies.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 8 Sep 2010 14:32:27 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"<pjsp...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> You are correct to limit this to yourself. Most LNs I've come in
>> contact with have a desperate need to believe "patriots" like Hoover
>> were right, and "liars" like Lane, Garrison, and Stone, are wrong.
>
> I think people like you have a desperate need to hate Hoover, LBJ, the
> CIA and so on.
>
People who are desperately concerned about rights need to hate Hoover,
LBJ, the CIA, etc.
> Therefore you are willing to be fooled by buff authors.
>
You are willing to be fooled by lying cover-up artists.
> You really don't know anything about conspiracy literature if you
> doubt the people you listed are liars.
>
> People like Tink Thompson, Tony Summers and Henry Hurt aren't liars.
> But the people you listed *are* liars.
>
> Do you actually doubt that Garrison lied?
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm
>
Do you actually doubt that certain professors have lied about Garrison?
Anthony Marsh
She did not say innocent as such. She said that he pulled the trigger.
But she tried to excuse his actions by saying that he was only following
CIA orders.
>
>> Buell
>> Frazier had a hard time believing Oswald did it. DeMohrenschildt came
>> to believe Oswald was innocent.
>
> He came to say that in the 70s, when he was bonkers.
>
You mean he wasn't already bonkers when he worked for the CIA in the
fifties and sixties?
>> So did Marina. Maybe there's a reason
>> for this.
>>>
>
> Marina was simply manipulated by buffs.
>
And changed her opinion several times.
Sandy McCroskey
> She claims his innocence, because she doesnt want her daughters to think
> of their father as a murderer.
Of course she desperately wants to believe her husband, the guy she was
once in love with, the father of her children is innocent. That's only
natural.
I just don't know what the CTs' excuse is!
/sandy
(By the way, Mark, you might consider not deleting the entire post you're
replying to, as it is sometimes difficult to tell whom you are
addressing.)
pjsp...@aol.com
> She claims his innocence, because she doesnt want her daughters to think
> of their father as a murderer.
And you know this how, exactly?
If I recall, she said she always found his behavior a bit odd, and thought
it possible he'd killed Kennedy, until she learned of his purported
connections to men like Banister, and the possibility he'd been a false
defector. This reconciled for her his odd behavior, and convinced her he'd
been just what he said he was...a patsy.
pjsp...@aol.com
> The original transfer time was ten oclock. Jack Ruby, was still in his
> apartment at that hour. CASE CLOSED.
Read Curry's book. There was no "original transfer time." Ruby's
supposedly late arrival is meaningless.
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Sep 8, 8:22=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 8 Sep 2010 14:32:27 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 8, 6:58=A0am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> 1. LNs don't believe in conspiracies.
>>
>> >> Yes we do, but only where there is actually evidence to prove or
>> >> strongly indicate a conspiracy. In this case there is no evidence for
>> >> conspiracy, just an overabundance of runaway fantasy speculation.
>> >> There is a mountain of evidence all pointing to LHO as a resentful and
>> >> embittered self-appointed low tech sniper with a chip on his shoulder
>> >> and a .38 in his pocket.
>>
>> >Grouping all LNs together, while fun, is no more accurate than
>> >grouping all CTs together. I have discussed the case on several other
>> >forums, and have went toe to toe with probably 2-300 different LNs.
>> >And you are wrong. Many LNs, perhaps most, have no real respect for
>> >the evidence, and move the back wound up to the base of the neck to
>> >support their belief in the single-bullet fairy tale.
>>
>> The wound was at the level of C7/T1.
>>
>> If you refuse to believe that, you have no respect for the truth.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>The HSCA FPP's exhibits placed it at T1. If one moves it up to C7/T1 and
>claims it's where the HSCA placed it, it's because one has little respect
>for the truth.
>
You should check out 7 HSCA 126, which shows it a bit above T1.
It's also the case that at 7 HSCA 117, there is a drawing that places
it sqarely at T1.
Further, the x-rays shows air in the tissues at the level of C7.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=39235
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=39234
>Now, that settled, your friend Artwohl has the bullet descending 21
>degrees within the neck, which means it would descend about two inches
>along its course before its exit. If the bullet descended two inches
>within the neck from C7/T1, at what level did it exit?
>
The bullet exited where the left lateral autopsy photo shows it
exiting, below the Adams Apple.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/angle.jpg
You have a habit of manipulating graphics to make them show what you
want them to show.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>> Oh my God! =A0You are actually invoking Marguerite.
>
>No. She was a loon. But she also knew her boy. Not all mothers think
>their boy is innocent, you know.
>
So you admit she was a loon, and still think her opinion has probative
value?
>>
>> >Buell
>> >Frazier had a hard time believing Oswald did it. DeMohrenschildt came
>> >to believe Oswald was innocent.
>>
>> He came to say that in the 70s, when he was bonkers.
>
>He either came to believe it because he was bonkers or went what you call
>bonkers because he came to believe it. Neither of us is in a position to
>know. What we do know is that his book on Oswald was written by someone
>who was not so bonkers that their opinion should be disregarded.
>
You just aren't getting this.
If he "came to believe" Oswald was innocent, it could not have been
that he saw more of Oswald or talked more to Oswald.
It would have to be other information somebody fed him, or more likely
his paranoid fantasies.
>>
>> >So did Marina. Maybe there's a reason
>> >for this.
>>
>> Marina was simply manipulated by buffs.
>>
>> She has firmly stuck to all the testimony she gave that inculpated
>> Oswald. =A0She has never backed off her testimony that Oswald told her
>> he shot at Walker.
>
>Never said she did. She stands by her testimony and believes Oswald
>innocent anyhow. Oughta give you something to think about.
>
Look . . . peoples' *opinions* have no probative value. All kinds of
people have all kinds of opinions, especially if they have been
manipulated.
Her *testimony* about Oswald has remained consistent since the days of
the WC.
John McAdams
wrote:
Lattimer was an honest researcher who was wrong about some things.
Just like the people I named below: Tink Thompson, Tony Summers and
Henry Hurt.
But the people you names *are* liars.
You really need to read the links I supplied, and see whether you can
refute anything on any of my pages about those authors.
>>
>> People like Tink Thompson, Tony Summers and Henry Hurt aren't liars.
>> But the people you listed *are* liars.
>>
>> Do you actually doubt that Garrison lied?
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm
>>
What about it, Pat?
>> Lane?
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>>
What about it, Pat?
>> Stone?
>>
>> http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html
>>
Want to defend him?
>> You credibility is at stake here.
>
>No, not at all. I acknowledge that both sides have distorted the
>evidence. It is LNs like yourself who like to pretend that their
>"side" always tells the truth.
Our side has fewer out-and-out liars.
Both sides have well-meaning people who are mistaken about things.
John Blubaugh
It is always amazing to see nutters plying their trade as pseudo
doctors, medical experts, ballistic experts, physics professors and in
this case psychologists. They always show that they know absolutely
nothing and they only parrot the WCR. If it ain't there, they don't
believe it.
JB
John Blubaugh
> Caroline, will never permit that NEVER.
She won't live forever. It WILL happen eventually, there is too much
controversy for it not to happen. It can also be done without her
permission if a new investigation is opened.
JB
John Blubaugh
> She claims his innocence, because she doesnt want her daughters to think
> of their father as a murderer.
Or, because she really believes he was guilty of nothing. Again, a
nutter who makes statements without any idea of what she wants her
daughters to think.
JB
John Blubaugh
> On 9/8/2010 11:26 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
What do they think drove him to being bonkers?
JB
tomnln
"mark drenning" <creepin...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:17955-4C88...@baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com...
tomnln
"mark drenning" <creepin...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2062-4C88...@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...
tomnln
"mark drenning" <creepin...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2062-4C88...@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4c890536$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> Marina was simply manipulated by buffs.
DID THE BUFFS "THREATEN TO DEPORT HER???
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> And changed her opinion several times.>>> She has firmly stuck to all the testimony she gave that inculpated>> Oswald. She has never backed off her testimony that Oswald told her>> he shot at Walker.>>>> .John>> -------------->> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm>>
John McAdams
wrote:
Then why were all the newsmen there?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
rwalker
wrote:
>3. All LNs are political conservatives.
>
>Not true at all and that should have nothing to do with it anyway.
>What may be more accurate is that LNs of all political persuasion are
>more familiar with formal logic, cognitive thinking, and the
>scientific method.
Absolutely untrue. Politically I am very far left, but on most issues
related to the assassination, I fall much closer to John McAdams, whom I
think I can safely say (and correct me if I'm wrong) is not a leftist.
But, as you say, these are myths.
Bud
Because you believe in impossibly massive conspiracies, and even
sillier stuff than that.
> JB
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
You're claming they showed a head shot from the front?
Interesting that you are on one side of that issue, and everybody who
has examined the photos and x-rays who has any credentials is on the
other side.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
you MUST BE ONE OF Macadam'sMcadams' STUDENTS.
"mark drenning" <creepin...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2062-4C88...@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...
tomnln
MARINA CLAIMS LEE WAS INNOCENT BECAUSE SHE REALIZES SHE WAS "MANIPULATED"
BY THE AUTHORITIES.
"mark drenning" <creepin...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2062-4C88...@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...
John Canal
>Further, the x-rays shows air in the tissues at the level of C7.
[...]
Dr. McAdams,
Sure Davis saw the air in the tissues around C7/T1.....and so did
McDonnel....of couse Perry telling Humes (phone call supposedly the next
AM) they suspected blood and in the upper mediastinum.
But what do you make of the other medical evidence the bullet transited
that HB&F should have seen or did see, e.g. the bruising of the apex of
the right pleura and lung, the cut on the right side of the trachea, the
debris around the C7/T1 transverse process with a possible fracture there
(Seaman), the bruised strap muscles (couldn't have been caused by
tracheostomy) near the neck/tracheostomy wound/cut?
Here's where I'm going with this...considering all that evidence of a
transiting bullet (not to mention Burkley being in TR1 when the
tracheostomy was performed over a bullet wound, or that they said at the
PH conference there was a bullet wound in the throat)..........don't you
find Humes' official story that they didn't know the bullet transited
until the next AM juuuust a tiny bit hard to believe........
especially since Both Finck and Boswell stated they knew the bullet
transited that night?
.john, don't hard to believe official accounts make you want a better
explanation?
:-)
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
Oh, you mean the so-called experts who can't even see the semi-circular
defect? Dr. Lawrence Angel thinks it is a bullet wound.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 9/9/2010 1:21 AM, pjspe...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 8:22 pm, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 8 Sep 2010 14:32:27 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 8, 6:58 am, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> 1. LNs don't believe in conspiracies.
>
> >>>> strongly indicate a conspiracy. In this case there is no evidence for
> >>>> conspiracy, just an overabundance of runaway fantasy speculation.
> >>>> There is a mountain of evidence all pointing to LHO as a resentful and
> >>>> embittered self-appointed low tech sniper with a chip on his shoulder
> >>>> and a .38 in his pocket.
>
> >>> Grouping all LNs together, while fun, is no more accurate than
> >>> grouping all CTs together. I have discussed the case on several other
> >>> forums, and have went toe to toe with probably 2-300 different LNs.
> >>> And you are wrong. Many LNs, perhaps most, have no real respect for
> >>> the evidence, and move the back wound up to the base of the neck to
> >>> support their belief in the single-bullet fairy tale.
>
>
> >> If you refuse to believe that, you have no respect for the truth.
>
> >> .John
> >> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> > The HSCA FPP's exhibits placed it at T1. If one moves it up to C7/T1 and
> > claims it's where the HSCA placed it, it's because one has little respect
> > for the truth.
>
> continued on its downward path and hit the TOP of T1.
Huh? I was discussing what is depicted in the HSCA FPP's exhibits.
What exhibit shows an entrance at C7/T1?
>
> > Now, that settled, your friend Artwohl has the bullet descending 21
> > degrees within the neck, which means it would descend about two inches
> > along its course before its exit. If the bullet descended two inches
> > within the neck from C7/T1, at what level did it exit?
>
> Such a trajectory would likely hit the top of the manubrium.
Exactly. Which gives us yet another reason to reject John M's
argument that Artwohl's trajectory is correct and consistent with the
wound locations of the HSCA FPP.
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 9 Sep 2010 01:21:44 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
The air in the tissues noted by the HSCA FPP did not designate the
bullet's entrance. They claimed air backed up in the neck when
Kennedy's tie blocked his throat wound.
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
>
> >Now, that settled, your friend Artwohl has the bullet descending 21
> >degrees within the neck, which means it would descend about two inches
> >along its course before its exit. If the bullet descended two inches
> >within the neck from C7/T1, at what level did it exit?
Your failure to answer this question speaks volumes.
>
> The bullet exited where the left lateral autopsy photo shows it
> exiting, below the Adams Apple.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/angle.jpg
>
> You have a habit of manipulating graphics to make them show what you
> want them to show.
Nonsense. You have a habit of not admitting what is obvious to
everyone else in the world: that Artwohl re-interpreted the wound
locations when he re-interpreted the bullet trajectory. It's 2 plus 2
= 4 kinda stuff, and yet you deny it. Please please please write a
chapter on this in your upcoming book so we can all scratch our heads
in amazement.
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 9 Sep 2010 01:22:45 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
I'll grant that her opinion wasn't worth much, if that will make you
happy.
>
>
>
> >> >Buell
> >> >Frazier had a hard time believing Oswald did it. DeMohrenschildt came
> >> >to believe Oswald was innocent.
>
> >> He came to say that in the 70s, when he was bonkers.
>
> >He either came to believe it because he was bonkers or went what you call
> >bonkers because he came to believe it. Neither of us is in a position to
> >know. What we do know is that his book on Oswald was written by someone
> >who was not so bonkers that their opinion should be disregarded.
>
> You just aren't getting this.
>
> If he "came to believe" Oswald was innocent, it could not have been
> that he saw more of Oswald or talked more to Oswald.
>
> It would have to be other information somebody fed him, or more likely
> his paranoid fantasies.
Or just the passage of time. The HSCA evolved from the Church
Committee, which itself evolved from the Rockefeller Commission. By
the mid-70's a lot had come out about assassination plots, false
defectors, etc. It could very well be that DeMohrenschildt saw Oswald
and Kennedy through an entirely different lens ten years after the
shooting.
>
>
> >> >So did Marina. Maybe there's a reason
> >> >for this.
>
> >> Marina was simply manipulated by buffs.
>
> >> She has firmly stuck to all the testimony she gave that inculpated
> >> Oswald. =A0She has never backed off her testimony that Oswald told her
> >> he shot at Walker.
>
> >Never said she did. She stands by her testimony and believes Oswald
> >innocent anyhow. Oughta give you something to think about.
>
> Look . . . peoples' *opinions* have no probative value. All kinds of
> people have all kinds of opinions, especially if they have been
> manipulated.
Right. But why do LNs assume that Marina's opinions in 1964, when the
survival of her family and her continued stay in this country was
predicated on her cooperation with the Warren Commission, were subject
to less manipulation than the opinions she holds today, when she is
free to say what she wants? It's a non-sequitur.
mark drenning
mark drenning
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 9 Sep 2010 10:32:39 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
I think I've read them before, but will take another look, provided
you read my chapter on Bugliosi's hypocrisy and dishonesty.
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter9b%3Areclaiminghistoryfromreclaimin2
Should you get a sudden inkling to balance out your webpage, you might
want to add a link.
>
> >> Stone?
>
> >>http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html
>
> Want to defend him?
>
> >> You credibility is at stake here.
>
> >No, not at all. I acknowledge that both sides have distorted the
> >evidence. It is LNs like yourself who like to pretend that their
> >"side" always tells the truth.
>
> Our side has fewer out-and-out liars.
Perhaps.
mark drenning
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 9 Sep 2010 19:02:42 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 9, 11:38 am, creepinchar...@msn.com (mark drenning) wrote:
> >> The original transfer time was ten oclock. Jack Ruby, was still in his
> >> apartment at that hour. CASE CLOSED.
>
> >Read Curry's book. There was no "original transfer time." Ruby's
> >supposedly late arrival is meaningless.
>
> Then why were all the newsmen there?
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I suspect you already know this. He told them that if they didn't want
to miss the transfer they should be there by 10. He knew it would be
after 10, but didn't know when exactly. No one did. For all we know,
Ruby was ordered to kill Oswald, and deliberately showed up late,
hoping he'd miss the transfer, and have an excuse. But, alas, he got
there just in time.
claviger
> If you dont think that jack ruby killing lee harvey oswald 2 days
> later , on national tv, is cause to suspect a conspiracy then there is
> really no room for discussion.
Yes, definitely cause to suspect a conspiracy. Also, cause to suspect
the Mafia because of his organized crime connections. Others say cause
to suspect Mossad because Ruby was Jewish. Only problem is no evidence
to prove these suspicions.
The problem the DPD had was to protect LHO from any number of angry
citizens who might consider themselves a hero for killing the assassin
who murdered this popular President. Jack Ruby probably had that same
thought in mind when he was able to get into the garage. This was his
moment to make history as an American hero.
John Blubaugh
No, I just think that people in the government were ordered to produce
evidence that indicated LHO was the lone assassin. They weren't very
good at it.
JB
mark drenning
mark drenning
the Pains garage she knew damn well why it was missing.
mark drenning
mark drenning
mark drenning
basement of the police station at ten oclock sunday morning. doesnt it
become embarrassing being wrong so often.
John Blubaugh
> On 8 Sep 2010 09:58:45 -0400, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
McAdams a leftist? Ha, ha, ho, ho, giggle. McAdams is right of Atilla
the Hun.
JB
bigdog
>
> I think anything the government touched in this case is suspect.
>
Well the government touched just about everything in this case so
let's throw it all out and make up whatever story we want to believe.
Jean Davison
Pat, I think you misunderstand us. LNs don't care much about
Marina's *opinions*, we're interested in what she knew.
How can you argue that Marina had to cooperate with the WC or be
deported, when the WC specifically told her the opposite?
QUOTE:
Mr. RANKIN. You understand that you do not have to tell this Commission in
order to stay in this country, don't you, now?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. You are not under any compulsion to tell the Commission here
in order to be able to stay in the country.
Mrs. OSWALD. I understand that.
Mr. RANKIN. And you have come here because you want to tell us what you
could about this matter, is that right?
Mrs. OSWALD. This is my voluntary wish, and no one forced me to do
this.
UNQUOTE
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
When the FBI first sent two agents to interview Marina, she didn't
like some of their questions and refused to talk to them. This was around
November 26th, when there was many questions that only Oswald's widow
could answer. And she clammed up -- both she and Robert Oswald said so.
If you're an FBI agent in that situation, what do you do? Say,
"Okay, bye," or try to exert a little pressure? Again, this was the FBI's
first attempt to interview her and she refused to talk to them. So far as
I know, neither Robert or Marina has ever said that anyone was trying to
force her to "cooperate" by giving them the answers they wanted. CT
authors just *assume* that, and state it as fact.
Here's Robert's testimony, which anyone can search for the word
"deport" (control +F):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_r.htm
Jean
bigdog
> She claims his innocence, because she doesnt want her daughters to think
> of their father as a murderer.
I think she has come to believe it. It reminds me of the line from the
Rod Stewart song, "Still I look to find a reason to believe". The
Oswald woman looked to find a reason to believe that Lee was innocent
and the CTs gave it to them. Of course brother Robert knows better. He
knows his brother was guilty as hell.
John McAdams
wrote:
>>
>> Right. But why do LNs assume that Marina's opinions in 1964, when the
>> survival of her family and her continued stay in this country was
>> predicated on her cooperation with the Warren Commission, were subject
>> to less manipulation than the opinions she holds today, when she is
>> free to say what she wants? It's a non-sequitur.
>
> Pat, I think you misunderstand us. LNs don't care much about
>Marina's *opinions*, we're interested in what she knew.
>
Excellent point.
> How can you argue that Marina had to cooperate with the WC or be
>deported, when the WC specifically told her the opposite?
>
>QUOTE:
>
>Mr. RANKIN. You understand that you do not have to tell this Commission in
>order to stay in this country, don't you, now?
>Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
>Mr. RANKIN. You are not under any compulsion to tell the Commission here
>in order to be able to stay in the country.
>Mrs. OSWALD. I understand that.
>Mr. RANKIN. And you have come here because you want to tell us what you
>could about this matter, is that right?
>Mrs. OSWALD. This is my voluntary wish, and no one forced me to do
>this.
>
>UNQUOTE
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
>
> When the FBI first sent two agents to interview Marina, she didn't
>like some of their questions and refused to talk to them. This was around
>November 26th, when there was many questions that only Oswald's widow
>could answer. And she clammed up -- both she and Robert Oswald said so.
>
McMillan is pretty clear that the FBI did intimidate Marina.
She notes that ". . . a few days after Lee died the FBI brought down
an immigration official from New York who insinuated that unless
Marina cooperated fully, she might be deported from the United
States."
Of course the irony was that, at the same time, the Secret Service was
worried that she might flee the country! (MARINA AND LEE, p. 8)
That sounds like the Federal government that we all know and don't
especially love, rather than the cooly efficient conspiracy machine of
the buff books.
> If you're an FBI agent in that situation, what do you do? Say,
>"Okay, bye," or try to exert a little pressure? Again, this was the FBI's
>first attempt to interview her and she refused to talk to them. So far as
>I know, neither Robert or Marina has ever said that anyone was trying to
>force her to "cooperate" by giving them the answers they wanted. CT
>authors just *assume* that, and state it as fact.
>
Of course investigators routinely pressure witnesses whom they know
are withholding information. That's entirely different from forcing a
witness to give particular testimony that the witness knows is untrue.
> Here's Robert's testimony, which anyone can search for the word
>"deport" (control +F):
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_r.htm
>
The key thing here is that Marina has never backed off her testimony.
She affirmed all the key elements of it to McMillan, and to the HSCA,
and even as late as the 1990s to Oprah.
This was all long past the time she could have had any fear of being
deported.
John McAdams
wrote:
>> Just like the people I named below: =A0Tink Thompson, Tony Summers and
>> Henry Hurt.
>>
>> But the people you names *are* liars.
>>
>> You really need to read the links I supplied, and see whether you can
>> refute anything on any of my pages about those authors.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> People like Tink Thompson, Tony Summers and Henry Hurt aren't liars.
>> >> But the people you listed *are* liars.
>>
>> >> Do you actually doubt that Garrison lied?
>>
>> >>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm
>>
>> What about it, Pat?
>>
>> >> Lane?
>>
>> >>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>>
>> What about it, Pat?
>
>I think I've read them before, but will take another look, provided
>you read my chapter on Bugliosi's hypocrisy and dishonesty.
>http://www.patspeer.com/chapter9b%3Areclaiminghistoryfromreclaimin2
>Should you get a sudden inkling to balance out your webpage, you might
>want to add a link.
>
I just looked at it, and I'll try to read it when I get a chance.
You write *long.*
I've read Bugliosi, and while I think he (like Posner) pushes a bit
too hard on some issues, I don't think he's dishonest.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
They did see it.
Did Angel think it was a wound of *entrance?*
bobr
> MARINA CLAIMS LEE WAS INNOCENT BECAUSE SHE REALIZES SHE WAS "MANIPULATED"
> BY THE AUTHORITIES.
>
>
> news:2062-4C88...@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...
>
>
>
> > She claims his innocence, because she doesnt want her daughters to think
> > of their father as a murderer.
Everyone, always ignores this nice round hole in jfk's skull.
I have not read nor heard from ANYONE a reasonable explanation for
that round hole in jfk's skull.
I have asked everyone to explain that round hole. No one has done it.
They avoid it.
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8678/jfkskullpng.png
Anthony Marsh
> A false defecter, where do you people come up with this crap?
>
>
James Jesus Angleton
Anthony Marsh
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/2/24/Photo_hsca_ex_376.jpg
>>
>>> Now, that settled, your friend Artwohl has the bullet descending 21
>>> degrees within the neck, which means it would descend about two inches
>>> along its course before its exit. If the bullet descended two inches
>>> within the neck from C7/T1, at what level did it exit?
>>
>> Such a trajectory would likely hit the top of the manubrium.
>
> Exactly. Which gives us yet another reason to reject John M's
> argument that Artwohl's trajectory is correct and consistent with the
> wound locations of the HSCA FPP.
>
Most of use knew that Artwohl was an idiot the moment we met him. Only
cover-up artists cite his opinions.
pjsp...@aol.com
> A false defecter, where do you people come up with this crap?
Though never confirmed to a certainty, Angleton's strong belief that
Nosenko was a "false defector" suggests he was running a similar
operation.
CIA documents, furthermore, confirm that agents were run into Russia,
and that they returned with Russian wives.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=49667&relPageId=6
John Blubaugh
Ah, the old nutter expertise in every area including psychology. You
have no idea of what Ruby thought at the time. You are just making
this up as you go as usual.
JB
John Blubaugh
> YOU WATCH IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN
I never now what post you are responding to so I just give you one
star on every post for confusion and nonsense.
JB
John Blubaugh
How about we dig him up and start an investigation with an independent
international panel of experts?
JB
John Blubaugh
> the Pains garage she knew damn well why it was missing.
When was it missing? Did LHO still own that MC? How would she know if
he sold it or not? More useless nutter speculation.
JB
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4c8a795c....@news.supernews.com...
Dr. Lawrence Angelo (Character)
Dr. Lawrence Angelo (Character) on IMDb: Movies, TV, Celebs, and more...
www.imdb.com/character/ch0052912/ - Cached
tomnln
MARINA still fears FOR HER FMILY's SAFETY ! ! !
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b6b3a372-776a-4841...@t3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
With a brother like Robert, Les didn't need Jack Ruby.
David Von Pein
JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>>> "The key thing here is that Marina has never backed off her testimony.
She affirmed all the key elements of it to McMillan, and to the HSCA, and
even as late as the 1990s to Oprah." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And even later than that, John. Marina told Vincent Bugliosi on
November 30, 2000, that she took the backyard photos and she also re-
confirmed for Bugliosi that:
"Although...I did not come to interrogate Marina about the facts
of the case, since this had already been done ad nauseam, a few
references to factual matters were made. When she insisted on Oswald's
innocence, suggesting he would never do such a murderous act, I
reminded her that he had, in fact, attempted to murder Major General
Edwin Walker, and she readily admitted he had, telling me she knew
this because "Lee told me he did."
"But she hastened to add that the president was different
because "Lee liked Kennedy." And [Fort Worth lawyer and friend of
Bugliosi's] Jack Duffy, who has studied the assassination for years
and leans toward the conspiracy theory, asked Marina if she had taken
"the backyard photos" of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she
answered evenly, "I did." "That settles that issue," Duffy said." --
Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History"
----------------
To be fair, there is also this excerpt from Bugliosi's book relating
to Vincent's interview with Marina Oswald on 11/30/2000:
"Marina, wearing very light makeup, was dressed in the most
inexpensive of slacks and a pullover sweater. There was no sense of
the modern woman about her, and her clothing and demeanor still spoke
of the old country to me.
"She told me she feels "very strongly" that her former husband
did not kill Kennedy. When I reminded her that she told the Warren
Commission and the FBI that she believed he had killed Kennedy, the
essence of her long, rambling explanation was that "all that they
showed me against him led me to believe it."
"I asked her if the authorities ever told her what to say or
threatened her in any way. She said they never told her what to say,
but "they kept talking to me over and over again. I was exhausted, and
had a four-week-old child, and at one point I didn't want to answer—
the word, I think, is 'tattle on'—my friends and relatives in Russia.
And I felt their questions about them were not relevant, but they told
me if I wanted to stay here in this country, I'd have to answer all
their questions."" -- Page 1486 of "Reclaiming History"
timstter
> MARINA CLAIMS LEE WAS INNOCENT BECAUSE SHE REALIZES SHE WAS "MANIPULATED"
> BY THE AUTHORITIES.
>
> "mark drenning" <creepinchar...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2062-4C88...@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...
>
> > of their father as a murderer.
Marina still says Oswald shot @ Walker, tomnln.
Since the WC she's been manipulated by liars like Jim Garrison and his
ilk.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
pjsp...@aol.com
If this is directed at me, all I can say is "Learn to read and think for
yourself." Most everyone to look into the case has concluded Ruby had
connections in the DPD that let him in the garage. The leap that his
connection also tipped him off as to when Oswald would be leaving is not a
long one.
Anthony Marsh
I never said that. He thought it was AN exit wound, not THE exit wound.
Bud
> On Sep 9, 11:01 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 2:39 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 8, 11:41 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On 8 Sep 2010 23:01:23 -0400, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >On Sep 8, 7:12 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >> On Sep 8, 2:32 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > 2017 will not end the debate, IMO. I suspect that only the exhumation
> > > > >> > of Kennedy, and the discovery there'd been more than one head shot,
> > > > >> > could end the debate. If no such evidence is found, the debate will
> > > > >> > continue.
>
> > > > >> evidence of a frontal shot is found, the debate will continue.
>
> > > > >Well it won't come from me.
>
> > > > If you were really willing to accept evidence, you would accept the
> > > > evidence from the autopsy photos and x-rays.
>
> > > > .John
> > > > --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> > > I think anything the government touched in this case is suspect.
>
> > sillier stuff than that.
>
> No, I just think that people in the government were ordered to produce
> evidence that indicated LHO was the lone assassin.
Is it because you would have went along with railroading an innocent man
that you find it so easy to believe others did?
> They weren't very
> good at it.
You see signs of conspiracy everywhere you look. Most CTers do.
> JB
John Blubaugh
And most nutters can't see past the end of there extremely long
noses.....
JB
claviger
> If you dont think that jack ruby killing lee harvey oswald 2 days
> later , on national tv, is cause to suspect a conspiracy then there is
> really no room for discussion.
Question: If the Mafia had LHO shoot the president and Jack Ruby kill
LHO, is that a conspiracy or just business as usual, as in SOP?
Dave Yandell
Actually, as I would have thought you knew, lots of those who've
looked into Ruby's actions most carefully don't think he needed anyone
to let him into the garage.
How did "his connection" know when Oswald would be brought down and
how did they signal Ruby?
Please cite evidence and try to fit your account into what we know of
Ruby's movements that day. Otherwise the leap is a long one indeed,
and perhaps off a short pier.
mark drenning
fantisy.
bigdog
She knew he had wrapped it in a blanket in the garage. She knew it wasn't
there after the assassination. The speculation is by you that he sold it.
Funny how it turns up on the floor he had been working on. With his
palmprint on it. With fibers matching his shirt on it. With fibers
matching his blanket found in a bag just large enough to hold his
disassembled MC. All just a series of amazing coincidences that were
working against poor old Lee Harvey Oswald. He has to be the unluckiest
SOB that ever walked the planet.
tomnln
Hey inky-Dink!
Didn't the DPD say that Oswald "changed" his shirt? ? ? ?
John Blubaugh
Funny how it didn't have his fingerprints on it. Funny how the bag he
carried was NOT large enough to carry the broken down MC. Funny how
fibers from his shirt would have matched millions of pieces of
clothing. Funny how the FBI found the fiber match to be "inconclusive"
regarding his blanket. Funny how you alway distort everything and
create your own little reality. Funny how JFK has a bullet wound in
his forehead and the Z-film shows his violent "back and to the left"
reaction to being hit there.
It is funny how you made up your mind LHO was guilty within minutes of
his arrest. You turned your mind off then and it hasn't been in gear
in the forty seven years since.
JB
Jean Davison
> On 10 Sep 2010 14:13:12 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com>
I overlooked an earlier FBI attempt to interview Marina on Nov.
23. She refused to talk to them then, too, and gave her reasons:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=693530
When Marina visited Oswald in jail that day, "he said that if
there would be a trial. and that if I am questioned it would be my
right to answer or to refuse to answer."
> > If you're an FBI agent in that situation, what do you do? Say,
> >"Okay, bye," or try to exert a little pressure? Again, this was the FBI's
> >first attempt to interview her and she refused to talk to them. So far as
> >I know, neither Robert or Marina has ever said that anyone was trying to
> >force her to "cooperate" by giving them the answers they wanted. CT
> >authors just *assume* that, and state it as fact.
>
> Of course investigators routinely pressure witnesses whom they know
> are withholding information. That's entirely different from forcing a
> witness to give particular testimony that the witness knows is untrue.
>
> > Here's Robert's testimony, which anyone can search for the word
> >"deport" (control +F):
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_r.htm
>
> The key thing here is that Marina has never backed off her testimony.
> She affirmed all the key elements of it to McMillan, and to the HSCA,
> and even as late as the 1990s to Oprah.
>
> This was all long past the time she could have had any fear of being
> deported.
I agree.
Jean
>
> .John
>
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
pjsp...@aol.com
As demonstrated in chapter 4b of patspeer.com, the fiber evidence is
surprisingly clear evidence that at least some of the evidence against
Oswald was DPD-created. The FBI testified that the fibers were wrapped
around the butt plate of the rifle AFTER the rifle had been dusted.
They theorized that perhaps the fibers were just loose on the rifle,
and that the aggressive dusting of the rifle performed by Lt. Day had
somehow wrapped the fibers around the plate. Well, if you believe
that, I've got some swamp lamp in Florida, etc... Total nonsense.
This becomes even more clear when one reads the witness statements. No
one saw Oswald wearing that shirt at work. None of the witnesses to
the shooting saw someone wearing that color shirt. According to
Fritz's notes, moreover, it was only the day after the shooting that
Oswald told him he'd changed his shirt when he got home and had been
wearing a red shirt while at work. This suggests the possibility that
the DPD had added the fibers to the rifle thinking Oswald had not
changed his shirt. It is also intriguing that the Dallas Police took a
red shirt into custody, and gave it to the Secret Service, but by the
time it ended up in the WC's exhibit photos, it had morphed into a
striped pajama top.
Might, mighty, curious. Sometimes I think of becoming a LN so I can
push the entirely possible scenario that Oswald was guilty as heck,
but that the DPD was concerned he'd walk, and conjured up a little
evidence to help tip the scales of justice. That would explain an
awful lot, IMO.
pjsp...@aol.com
I could come up with a dozen scenarios that make sense. There was no
camera following Ruby around. He could have stopped and used a
payphone. Or someone could have left a message for him with someone
else.
The argument that Ruby couldn't have conspired to kill Oswald because
he arrived at the garage just in the nick of time has no more
credibility than the argument Oswald couldn't have conspired to kill
Kennedy because he arrived on the sixth floor just in the nick of
time. Hogwash.